What was Paul trying to say?

[Vico]

Vico,

Thank you so much for your attention to my posts.

In simple language let me state that I do not consider that the Father** ‘hath appointed (the Son) heir of all things’.**

Also I do not believe the Father ‘God, hath anointed’ the Son ‘**with the oil of gladness above’ his ‘fellows’.
**

In the Trinity the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal, each of the Three Persons possesses the one Divine Essence (De Fide).

In the Catechism we read:

503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

Note that Jesus Christ is only the person of the Son because the human nature was assumed. Therefore the is human rational soul and body is assumed by the Son. However there is not a human person independent of a divine person. It is correct, therefore to say that Jesus Christ is the Son and “heir of all things” (given everything) and was anointed “with the oil of gladness above thy fellows”. Oil of gladness is that of baptism, and Jesus Christ was baptized in fulfillment of the scriptures.

 

[NoelFitz]

Vico,

I appreciate your replies to me.

But I consider you do not appreciate the purpose of this thread. It is “What was Paul trying to say?”. It is not about 'What is the teaching of the Catholic Church?". Paul was not a medieval theologian, and his knowledge of Scholastic theology was zero. He lived prior to Trent and the CCC.

Current Catholic teaching was not explicitly expressed by Paul, even thought his ideas cannot disagree with the true faith. Current Catholic theology may be implicit in Paul, but it is not explicit.

I wanted answers to a specific query.

I regret my inability to focus my query more precisely.

 

[Vico]

…

Phillipians 2
[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

[7] “Emptied himself”: exinanivit, made himself as of no account.

 

[NoelFitz]

Vico

Apologies. I must have originally misphrased my concern, hence so many of the replies were unsatisfactory for me.

Phil 2:7 is the vital verse. ‘Form’ is used in a sense completely different from the Scholastic sense. Also ‘found in human appearance’ is not meant to suggest Docetism.

So the kernel of the problem is what Paul meant by ἐκένωσεν. On reflection the understanding that Jesus himself laid aside his divinity is acceptable.

So thank you and all others who contributed to this thread for interest, patience and courtesy.

The issue now can be closed.

%%% %%% %%%

BNT Philippians 2:7 ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος

NAB Philippians 2:7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,

VULM Philippians 2:7 sed semet ipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo

ἐκένωσεν from ‘Κενόω 1a of Christ, he laid aside equality with or the form of God’ (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon).